> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:11 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] any concerns about libxml > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > Is exapt still alive? The homepage does not look promising... > > I don't know of any new development on it, on the other hand I'm not > sure > what additional development would be needed.
I am primarily concerned because the homepage mentions the last release in 2007, and that was only a minor release number change from the previous release, which was in 2006. This somewhat smells like a dead project. Just to make sure: I do not have use expat or libxml or whatever in the past and I do not have preference. I just want to use something that is able to do the job and that stays and hopefully gets bugfixes over time, if these are necessary. I have to admit that I am always a bit picky when it comes to utility libraries -- all too often they disappeared "just" after I built important functionality on one ;) >From quick look at the docs/tutorials, both seem to do the job. Expat can not validate, while libxml somehow seems to be tied into gnome. While this is no issue per se, such close relationships always make me a bit nervous. So, if at all, I'd tend to expat, if it is not a dead project. Rainer > > David Lang > > > ----- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht ----- > > Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Juni 2010 14:48 > > An: rsyslog-users <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: [rsyslog] any concerns about libxml > > > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > >> As a question related to the config issue: does anyone have concerns > about > >> the libxml library? After what I have seen, it seems to be fairly > portable, > >> stand-alone and widely used. But I have zero experience selecting > XML > >> toolkits, thus I ask... > > > > the gold standard in portability and speed is still expat as far as I > > know. It's fallen out of favor in recent years as it really wants to > > process the entire XML document in one pass (but it does have > callbacks so > > that it can handle learning about new tags as you go along). with > > multi-meg/gig XML documents you really need to have an incramental > parser, > > but rsyslog shouldn't need to deal with such large entities ;-) > > > > David Lang > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > > http://www.rsyslog.com > > > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
